(stepping on the soap box)
I’m what they call a climate change denier based solely of the fact that it’s being rammed down our throats for the sake of politics.
But I don’t deny immense pollution impacts climate to some degree (the degree for me is up for discussion).
From what I’ve been reading, cities like Katmandu in the Himalayas have certainly changed their microclimate due to geography, as it is surrounded by mountains and there is nowhere for air pollution to escape.
And stringed together with uncontrolled industry, large scale hydropower projects and uncontrolled metropolitan growth, the pollution alters the climate of the whole region. Every continent has equivalent examples.
For me, though, the biggest culprit is conventional industrial agriculture. It visibly changes regional climate because it lays the soil bare, and bare soil is hotter than plant-covered soil.
When you see tens of thousands of acres laid bare for the sake of one yearly crop, erosion worsens. Floods worsen. Good soil and chemicals get swept into rivers and river deltas. The fishing areas along coastlines have become poisoned by chemicals dumped thousands of miles inland.
What is the effectiveness of fishing quotas when the fish are endangered due to a failing resource management model fishing companies seemingly can’t control?
“What creates Oxygen on Earth?” is Life.
Phytoplankton is one of the main producers of oxygen and there is massive lack of information in regards to the microbiology of Earth. When there is this huge deficit in information regarding the largest oxygen providers on Earth, how can any other measure like turning engine-run ships into wind-powered ships be effective? It’s just feel-good engineering to appease the climate change bigots.
(sorry for the long post, and I’ll get off the soap box now)